While I do not disagree with Dr SK Teoh's support of a two-state solution to the Palestinian- Israeli problem, I most certainly disagree on a matter of principle with his argument for Israel's right to be there, based on so-called 'biblical and historical roots to the land 3,000 years back'.

As a matter of factual record, through biblical admission and archaeological records the Hebrews were in the first place intruders of that land. Let us not conveniently forget that Moses' successor, Joshua and his Hebraic army, entered that land as conquering invaders, but nevertheless still as invaders.

Any other consideration would be suggesting, in today's terms, that the United States of America, too, has legitimate 'historical' roots to the land of Iraq which it has just invaded. The only difference between these two cases would be merely a matter of duration of stay and the geo-political situation of today.

And while on the duration of stay, Teoh may have inadvertently provided the incorrect impression that the Hebrews/Israelis had been in, or had association with, that land for 3,000 continuous years.

The reality is that the Hebrews had been kicked out of that land twice, around 588 BC by the Babylonians (inhabitants of today's Iraq) and in AD 70 by the Romans - hence the emergence of the term Diaspora.

Ironically, following the first diaspora, the Hebrews were given a reprieve from bondage to the King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, by the Persians, today's Iranians. As an acknowledgment of their gratitude, the religiously fanatical Hebrews had even (perhaps grudgingly) permitted their Holy Book (equivalent to the biblical Books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel) to contain references to the Persian Kings, Cyrus and Darius, as jolly good blokes.

I suppose it will be unlikely that such an honour would be similarly accorded to Iran's Ayatollah.

The last expulsion by the Romans saw the last of a Hebraic state since twenty centuries ago. With two millenniums of non-Hebraic association, how can anyone really claim that Israeli has a right to return to 'their land'?

The historical fact is the Jews had no homeland to speak of for 2,000 years. Minsk in today's Belarus was the Jew's biggest centre in the world until WWII. If anywhere was to be their homeland, it ought to have been the area around Minsk.

It requires a constant reference to the Bible, based on post-Babylonian Jewish writings, for the Israelis to have some tenuous claims to that strip of Middle-Eastern land between Egypt and Lebanon - and the beliefs and support of the Western Christian Right.

Modern Israel is a political reality today, made even more substantial by the unswerving and blind support of the mightiest nation, the United States of America.

For the safety and well-being of their children, the Palestinians will be better off accepting this reality as well as the fact that the world may not always be fair or equal for everyone.